Marine transportation is considered to be one of the most important aspects of global transportation services. Due to the increase in marine transportation, there are significant impacts on the marine environment. One of the possible measures for mitigation of the environmental impact could be switching to environmentally friendly fuel. However, the alternative fuel selection process is considered to be a problem due to various criteria to be considered and stakeholders that should be involved in the selection process. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the application of multicriteria analysis as a decision-support tool for the alternative marine fuel selection problem in coastal marine traffic. The suggested methodology takes into account environmental, technological, and economic aspects, and ensures the participation of different stakeholders in the selection process. The priority ranking of the alternatives is based on a combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). The implementation of this method considers the involvement of relevant stakeholders through evaluation of the criteria weights and performance of each alternative with respect to each criterion. The method is applied for the case study of Croatia, where the results demonstrated that the best alternative for all stakeholders is electric propulsion, even though there are differences in opinions and perceptions with respect to the objectives and criteria. The findings of this analysis, likely the first of this type in this area, can serve as a solid basis for strategic planning.

This paper explores the role of maritime law in seafarer training pursuant to amendments to the STCW Convention of 2010. The basic intention of the STCW Convention adopted in 1978 was to harmonize national regulations, seafarer training and training programs, as well as the conditions and manner of seafarer certification to raise general qualification levels of seagoing vessel crews. The STCW Convention is occasionally amended to allow legislation to take into account and stay abreast of the changing technical standards in shipping. The latest amendments to the STCW Convention were adopted at the Manila Diplomatic Conference in 2010, and entered into force and effect on 1 January 2012. Member states are required to complete the procedure of gradual implementation of the new provisions by 31 December 2016, with all seafarers being required to obtain certificates issued in accordance with the amended regulations by 1 January 2017. Although ship navigation during sailing has been significantly facilitated by the development of technics and technology, seafarers are now required to be well-versed in an increasing number of maritime law regulations and procedures promoting the safety of life and property at sea and the protection of the marine environment, while simultaneously ensuring unobstructed exploitation of ships. The latest amendments to the STCW Convention in this sense, in Model Course 7.01., impose additional seafarer training requirements, inter alia, broadening the scope of mandatory contents to be covered by maritime law courses required for the obtainment of the professional title of ship officer. The paper pays especially close attention to the newly adopted amendments and the conformity of national legislation proscribing seafarer training standards. However, it is exactly in the domain of seafarer training in maritime law that harmonization may be said to be incomplete.

As maritime transport continues to grow, the volume and complexity of waste generated by ships, such as garbage, sewage, and oily residues, requires the establishment of effective, accessible and well-regulated collection systems in ports. Ensuring effective waste management remains a major challenge across the European Union, as differences in national implementation and charging systems continue to undermine the sustainability of port reception facilities. Directive (EU) 2019/883 on port reception facilities (PRF Directive) was introduced to harmonise regulatory standards, ensure adequate infrastructure, and remove barriers to proper waste management. This paper analyses the transposition and implementation of the PRF Directive in selected EU countries, focusing on the differences in cost recovery systems (CRS) applied in ports. A comparative analysis of charging models and waste management plans for ports is carried out, including an in-depth study of the leading European ports with the highest reported waste volumes. A nine-criteria evaluation framework was developed through a stakeholder focus group involving port authorities, concessionaires, shipping companies, and the Harbour Master’s Office, and was applied using the multi-criteria TOPSIS decision methodology, complemented by sensitivity analyses and adjustments for different port types (cargo, passenger, fisheries, marinas). The results show that the best-performing models achieved C* values between 0.514 and 0.529, confirming the robustness of the evaluation framework. Overall, the findings indicate that the optimal charging model is context-dependent, with No-Special-Fee systems without special charges favoured in passenger and leisure ports, and Prepaid + Reimbursement models more suitable for cargo and fishing ports. The paper concludes with policy recommendations aimed at increasing transparency, ensuring consistent reporting, and aligning CRS models more closely with EU environmental objectives.

When in 2019 the Act on Amendments to the Maritime Code came into force, the Register of ships was established as a single registration point for all maritime craft of Croatian nationality. Therefore, all ships, which previously had been entered in the boat ledger, were transferred to the Register of ships. At the beginning of 2020, when such a single Register of ships came into use, the Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure issued a special Ordinance regulating the entry of ships into register, maximum permitted age and technical specifications for entry of ships into the Croatian Register of ships. At the end of 2020, the Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure, in compliance with the Maritime Code, officially deleted from the Register of ships about 20,000 boats whose owners did not have harmonized data or did not have a correct or non-existent personal identification number (PIN). The Ordinance prescribes the procedure for re-entry of boats in the Register of ships, with special provisions relating to such cases. At the beginning of 2021, and after the official deletion of such boats from the Register of ships, the Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure sent the Instructions on the procedure after the decision on the official deletion of maritime crafts to all Harbour Master Offices. The Instruction, inter alia, requires from the Harbour Master Offices to perform an occasional inspection of boats on the basis of their request for re-entry. The author considers such an Instruction disputable and considers that it does not correctly interpret the provisions on re-entry of ships in the Register after the official deletion of such boats from the Register of ships, more precisely that it does not properly interpret the provisions of a special Ordinance prescribing the mentioned procedure. Therefore, this paper gives an overview of the contested provisions as well as the corresponding interpretations in accordance with the Maritime Code and by-laws adopted on its basis.

Na temelju Pomorskog zakonika, Zakona o pomorskom dobru i morskim lukama te Pravilnika o uvjetima i načinu održavanja reda u lukama i na ostalim dijelovima unutarnjih morskih voda i teritorijalnog mora Republike Hrvatske, svaka je lučka uprava obvezna donijeti Pravilnik o redu u luci za jednu ili više luka otvorenih za javni promet kojima upravlja. Ta obveza proizlazi iz pravnog statusa lučke uprave kao tijela koje upravlja lukom otvorenom za javni promet. Takvim se pravilnikom posebno regulira: namjena pojedinih dijelova luke; uvjeti uplovljavanja, pristajanja, vezivanja, premještanja, sidrenja i isplovljavanja plovnih objekata; mjesto, opseg i način obavljanja lučkih djelatnosti; način uređenja i korištenja lučkog područja za gospodarske i druge svrhe; način obilježavanja lučkog područja; mjere sigurnosti, zaštite okoliša i dr. Posebno je značajno što se pravilnikom propisuju mjere za provođenje i održavanje reda u luci, koje je ovlašten poduzimati lučki redar. Pravilnik se primjenjuje na kopnenom i morskom prostoru luke, kako je određeno uredbom o osnivanju pojedine lučke uprave. Prije donošenja pravilnika, na njega je potrebno pribaviti prethodnu suglasnost nadležne lučke kapetanije, a nakon donošenja pravilnik mora biti javno objavljen. U radu se posebno analiziraju ovlasti i obveze lučke uprave u provođenju reda u luci, s posebnim naglaskom na njezin značaj u postizanju potrebnih standarda sigurnosti plovidbe te provedbi ovlaštenja u praksi domaćih luka otvorenih za javni promet.